The Franchise Owner's most trusted news source


Log In / Register | Jul 22, 2018

Comments regarding this article:

Add new comment


39 Comments

Sean Kelly's picture

"Mercatus on SBA Loans" Available online?

Can anyone provide a link to "Mercatus on SBA Loans" George Mason University?

And Robert Purvin's comment #79 regarding The Franchise Rule?

Sean Kelly

UnhappyFranchisee.Com

PS I think Bob Purvin deserves the moniker "esteemed" and more.  The Franchise Fraud (unfortunately) still holds up remarkably well today.  It took a lot of guts to publish that, especially in 1994.  He's got my respect.

Bob Purvin and professors at George Mason University

are respected by those who read them. Bob Purvin's book "Franchise Fraud" is still pertinent today and his "personal" public comments to the FTC concerning the FTC Franchise Rule in Comment #79 speaks to his personal integrity.

More steam

If Bob Purvin is not "esteemed" then a bunch of anonymous professors at George Mason are not esteemed either.

Read "Mercatus on SBA Loans" George Mason University

whose esteemed scholars for many years have pointed out that the SBA is a subsidy of franchising and the banks, etc..
It can't be said that the franchisor loses from these bad loans that are made by the SBA for start=up costs and the banks generally never lose either because they have security and sell the government guaranteed portions of the loans.
While it may be bad business for the franchisees who lose everything, it is good business for so many others. Churning and turning is intrinsic to franchiusing.
Obviously, it is public policy because all of the time small businesses are struggling to make it, they are feeding the economy ---and taxes are being paid and dollars are sucked up to the top of the pyramid.

Quiznos Set The Bar

But there were thousands of Quiznos' franchisees bent over the same way over a 15 year run. Quiznos was the originator. What 7-Eleven is doing is taking a page out of the Schaden playbook. If you ignore the history of Quiznos you're bound to be fleeced by a 7-Eleven or some other D!ck Schaden wannabe.

loans for 7- Eleven franchisees.

Why just use Quiznos only for example? There are hundreds of franchisees being screwed the same way!

loans for 7- Eleven franchisees.

Where do you get this information about the SBA Loans?
I Call you on your BS other wise!

7-Eleven. Corporate Employees Must Have Known

7-Eleven Corporate Executive Team obviously knows the the weak profitability within their system.
Yet it doesn't stop them from taking peoples life savings and providing them with a job at best.

Let's recap what we learned over the last few days.
The store income is extremely weak.
The franchise fee is not justified.
As a result the return on investment is none existent.
By the way the SBA does NOT provide loans for 7- Eleven franchisees. This means they are aware that the risk is very high.

Entrepreneur magazine lists 7-Eleven as a top franchise opportunity. Based on what?
How much does 7-Eleven corporate contribute to the magazine for that ridiculous ranking.

7-Eleven is dying franchise system.

SBA Is A Franchisor's Piggybank

The SBA has been awol for years. Thousands of Quiznos were financed by the SBA despite a track record that can only be described as putrid. Millions of tax dollars loaned out to build businesses that ended up in the rat's nest.

7-Eleven franchise owner paid less than employee

Income before personal income taxes etc of $37,356?

For a 70 hour week?

If you were paid $10 per hour, and therefore $15 for time over 40, your salary would be $44,200.

So with 7-Eleven you are making less than if you were an employee with a rate of $10/hour. And that does not count the lost return on investment of the money you have spent to buy the franchise.

7-Eleven - Let's Examine the Avg Performance for a Single Unit

Great Post!, I am sure the franchisors will say "See we were right you make to much money!" Keep in mind these numbers are also best case scenario. Most Franchisees do not even come close to these profit numbers! it is a full time and over time job to just keep your loss at 100k or less per year! Just get through the lease and contract before you run totally out of money! I am talking about so called viable franchises that are seldom mentioned here on BMM.

Old Sword's picture

Avg Performance for Below Avg System - Is SBA Paying Attention?

If these are real numbers then 7-11 becomes the next franchise system that has proven they don't meet SBA loan guidelines.

No wonder why the SBA's Office of General Counsel made a directive to all SBA personnnel to no longer breakout franchise data from their reports on 7a and 504 loans.  Its quite clear that the SBA is now complicit in franchise fraud and getting U.S citizens/borrowers in believing that franchising is safer.  SBA data has proven time and time again to prove otherwise but certain people at the top are determined to quash the real information.  With SBA leadership brought in from the banking industry it's obvious they want to keep the money train moving forward for their banker buddies.

Great breakdown.  And these aren't even first year numbers.  Thanks for the post.

7-Eleven - Let's Examine the Avg Performance for a Single Unit

The following information is accurate and sheds light as to why this is a weak brand and why z's are struggling.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the following data is absolutely real and understand that for 711 z's, the only expense that is NOT fixed is payroll. Here it comes.

Brand average volume $1,300,000.00
Multiplied by total GP%. X.34 (GP% - this takes the overall product margin and combines it with all commission income, money order sales commission, lottery sales commission, gift card - green dot- phone card, etc commissions. 34% GP is complete (All In). This immediately sheds light on how weak profits are at 711. Let's continue.

$1,300,000.00 x 34% = $442,000 Gross Profit Dollars (Before any Split with the Company)
7-Eleven takes 50% of the gross profit dollars. In some case corporate takes more, they can take as much as 54% but in majority of the stores the corporation takes 50% of the profits. Let's continue.

$442,000.00 x 50% (corporates cut) = $221,000,00 ( this is the total Gross Income for the z's and for corporate). Let's continue to work the franchisee side of the financial.

$221,000.00 Gross Income for majority of 7-Eleven franchisees. Let's work the expenses line by line.

Selling Expenses: I want to show payroll in detail so you clearly see the number is very honest:
24 hour operation = 168 hours to cover just with single coverage
1st shift (6am - 2pm requires 2 employees for the entire shift and a 3rd employee from
6am until 10am.
2nd shift (2p - 10pm requires 2 employees for the entire shift)
3rd shift (10pm - 6am requires 1 employee by his or herself all nite)
Let's add up the total payroll hours. The above generates 308 weekly payroll hours
Let's pay these folks an average rate of $9.00 / hourly

Before we calculate the payroll dollars needed, we know that a 7-Eleven franchisee will
Need to work in his or her store because they need to keep payroll down. Let's reduce
the total hours paid to employees and give those hours to the owner.
Let's put 70 hours weekly on the owner.
308 total hours that needed to be work minus 70 = 238 hours to pay employees
238 hours x $9.00 per hour = $2,142.00 weekly payroll
$2,142.00 weekly payroll x 52 weeks = $111,384.00 annual payroll expense

Account 610. Payroll = $111,384.00
Account 620 Payroll taxes.(taxes, FICA, Medicare) = $6,500.00
Account 621 Payroll taxes ( unemployment). = $1,300.00
Account 820 Workers Comp Insurance. = $3,900.00
Account 850 Employee Group Insurance. (Not affordable)

Maintenance Expenses: these are fixed expenses / corporate owns all equipment but z's pay the maintenance fees on the equipment.
Account 670. Maint Contract other. = $550.00
Account 671. Maint Contract Refrigeration. = $2,500.00
Account 672. Maint. Contract slurpee. = $3,100.00
Account 673 Maint. Contract fountain. = $1,200.00
Account 674. Maint Contract Security = $350.00
Account 675. Maint Contract cash registers. = $2,000.00
Account 676. Maint Contract oven/grills. = $2,100.00
Account 677. Maint Contract coffee/cappuccino. = $1,400.00
Account 680. Maint NON Contract. (Not covered). = $1,500.00
Account 690. Maint Building. (This varies depending on a lease vs owned). = $450.00
Account 701. Common area CAM = $5,000.00

Cash and Inventory Shortages:
Account 640 Inventory Shortage (Retail industry Avg is 2% of sales. Let's believe these convenience
Experts are better than 2% and let's use 1% so $1,300,000 x .01 = $13,000.00

Account 641 Inventory Shortage - lottery tickets - Yes. Lottery is separated from Merchandise
Lottery is counted separately. 12 months at $75.00 per month = $900.00
Account 720. Cash Variation. 12 months at $100.00 per month = $1,200.00

Advertising
Account 801. Advertising Fee. (.5% of sales). $1,300,000.00 x.005 = $6,500.00

All Other Expenses:

Account 630. Bags. = $775.00
Account 650. Supplies. = $2,500.00
Account 660. Telephone. = $600.00
Account 710. Taxes/ fees and licenses/local. = $800.00
Account 740. Janitorial and laundry. = $400.00
Account 741. Dumpster/ rubbish removal. = $3,600.00
Account 762. Security monitoring. = $135.00
Account 830. Crime and casualty loss / robberies. = $1,000.00
Account 891. Credit card fees. = $4,000.00
Account 960. Professional services. Floors/ power washings etc. = $3,000.00
Account 970. Membership, dues, donations. = $800.00
Account 991. Interest Expense. (7-11 corp charges interest on store inventory). = $1,200.00

Grand Total Expenses = $183,644.00
Now let's calculate the franchisees net income

Remember from above the GP$= $221,000.00 subtract total expenses of $183,644.00

Net Income is $37,356.00 (this is what the franchisee will take to the bank)

Key notes: remember the franchisee is working 70 hours per week
The franchisee better not hire a thief or his or her inventory shortage or cash shortage will rise and lower the above net income.

Clearly this is not a franchise system to grow an organization. In the above scenario if you hire a manager you would just break even.

Sean Kelly's picture

Internet Posting Kept 7-11 From Sealing Document

7-Eleven, Inc. was unable to get the bombshell McCord Certification sealed because it had already been posted on BlueMauMau.org, UnhappyFranchisee.Com and other websites.  Judge Joel Schneider determined "The horse has left the barn."

He also had some unflattering words about the Declaration filed by Duane Morris attorney Stephen Sussman, stating that it didn't contain "a single fact" in support of 7-Eleven's attempt to get the whistleblower's testimony sealed.

More here:  7-Eleven Attempt to Seal McCord Whistleblower Document Rejected

 

7-Eleven and PA House Bill 1620

Wow. 7-Eleven corporation is why PA HB1620 is necessary.

7-Eleven corporations liability ?

I would like to know how liable is 7-Eleven Corporate for damaging brand value over the last 2 years resulting in damaged resale value to their franchise owners.
Who would honestly buy a 7-Eleven store?

Cheap Labor and Cheap Capital protectedT

The status quo ensures the cheap labor and cheap capital for the Franchisors who have no investment in the hard assets and units and who don't lose anything but the royalties when units go belly-up! Churning and turning, therefore, is intrinsic to the franchise model of doing business Franchisees will continue to bend over in pain in submission to the Franchisors and nothing will be done.

7-Elected Representatives

Franchise Owner Association Leaders were under attack by corporate. The obvious effort was to silence and remove them. Corporate will not allow a voice from the franchisee community.

7-Eleven. Let's Run the Numbers !

7-Eleven profitability is weak. Let's break it down from an annual perspective for the avg. unit.
Average Sales Volume $1,300,000.00
Average GP%. X 33.5%

GP$ are. $435,500.00
Corporate gets. X 50% (new contracts corp takes 52%)

= $217,500 GP$ For the franchisee (before operating expenses/ G&A/ and advertising fees)
So subtract -$200,000

Total Net income. $17,500.00. (What about possible inventory shortages?)

This is real.
Oh you want to become a multiple? You better put a manger in the above unit. Is it affordable?

Return on investment:

The above unit franchise fee/ licenses etc = $150,000.00
Goodwill payment = $125,000.00
Total investment $275,000.00

The contract is ten years. Making $17,500.00 for ten years does NOT cover the investment and by the way after ten years if you want to stay, be prepared to pay a renewal fee.

Remember in a higher volume scenario the franchise fee will rise, obviously raising the overall investment.
Don't worry about that because high volume units are far and few.

Water under bridge

It was a decades long pattern of unethical extortionate conduct for which the franchisor suffered no consequences.

Water under the bridge? More like a raging flood.

Did the 7-Eleven franchisees contact their elected representatives?

Jim Coen's picture

Water Under the Bridge

IFA Lobbyist in Maine stated, "that was a Dunkin' problem, they negotiated a new franchise agreement and that problem went away, it's water under the bridge".

Wouldn't you have it, Mr. Seid has 7-11 on his client list. Also 7-11 was one of the franchisors against LD 1458.

I wonder if Mr. Seid would suggest to his client to follow Dunkin' Brands example and bring in a new CEO and negotiate a new franchise agreement? Or will we be hearing this story unfold for the next 2-3 years that the Dunkin' Story took to unfold.

Eqyuity Extraction is alive and well in franchising at a 7-11 near you.

Absolutely Correct!

These West Point boys absolutely crossed the line.
7-Eleven in comparison to other brands is in their own control freak arena.
I would like to press Joe DePinto for his lack of transparency.
Joe, What's the brand AUV?
Joe, What's the brand average EBITDA?
Joe, What percentage of stores in 2013 fell below their required equity level and had to pay more money into the system in order to comply with your franchise agreement?
Joe, What was the average EBITDA for the first 3 months of 2014?
Joe, How is it that the franchisee profitability struggles, yet the corporation has a healthy bottom line?
Is it possible since your franchise system is NOT a royalty structure but instead you take a minimum of 50% of the profits that corporate greed supersedes the success of your franchisees?

Joe your business model sucks!
The average sales volume per unit is not high enough to support mutiples.
The average profit margin per unit is not high enough to offset your weak unit sales volume.
This organization continues to sell franchises knowing very well that the incoming z's will never make money.
Since the system can't support multiple site growth, these z's cut operational corners to turn a profit and corporate looks the other way until something goes wrong. Something went wrong in NY, in June of 2013. Corporate was shocked. Really Joe? The company had no idea? What a joke.

Let me sum it up: The corporation struggles running stores corporately and in many cases loses money. The obvious goal is to unload the stores through franchising (even non profitable stores), collect a franchise fee and if the z goes into deficeit in 6 to 12 months, just take it back and sell it again. Amazing!

In some cases z's become desperate, maybe the fix is, Don't Franchise Stores Knowing the Buyer Can't Survive!

Franchise Fee: 7-Eleven has raised their fee to as much as 30% of Gross Profit (there is a formula to calculate exactly). 7-Eleven charges 6 figure franchise fees. Find me any Franchisor that charges more than $45,000.

Franchisee Goodwill: Along with 7-Eleven raising franchise fees that obviously cuts into the franchisees goodwill return but what about the surplus of stores available. (Supply and Demand) along with an abusive Franchisor. How marketable are the franchisees stores?

Many franchisees worked hard to increase sales and profits over a period of years expecting to one day sell they're unit or units for much more then they're original investment. Does anyone honestly believe potential buyers are lining up. 7-Eleven corporation has seriously damaged the brand value and clearly crushed realistic goodwill returns. Is corporate liable?

Joe earns over $1,000,000.00 annually.
Does he care that the 7-Eleven "Independent Contractors" pay his salary?
Joe, step aside! You're in over your head and lack integrity.

7-Eleven franchise a great opportunity

Good news!

All of those seized franchises will be ready for sale next month. 7-Eleven is a Featured Sponsor at the International Franchise Expo June 19-21, 2014.

Not only is the International Franchise Association helping out, the US Department of Commerce has designated the Expo as one of the 30 events in the International Buyer Program.

Buyers from all over the country and all over the globe will be flying in to buy these chances to be In Business For Yourself, Not By Yourself.

7-Eleven loss prevention specialists are working overtime to ensure that enough franchises are seized to meet the demand.

Cash in your retirement fund now!!!

case law made just this week!

Blochhead franchisor sued franchisee for liquidated damages due to failed restaurant development. Franchisee won all expenses back amd more. Takes right attorney and expert team. More on this in BMM later !

Corbin Williston's picture

Crappy franchisors long predate the Rule. Just ask Solomon.

Most readers would agree there are a lot of garbage franchise systems out there, and lots of onerous contracts. But that has nothing to do with the Franchise Rule.

Talk to one of the old attorneys like Richard Solomon and he will regale you with stories of all the scammers in the days before the Franchise Rule was even being drafted.

Disclaimers of reliance on an Offering Circular are a bit different from normal disclaimers of reliance. There are public policy considerations which may preclude enforcement of disclaimers relating to documents which are required to be provided and disclaimers of statutory protection.

Case law on this is state-specific, even if you are in federal court. Many local courthouses have libraries with access to legal databases where you can do a keyword search.

Why would I be an IFA Shill

when I am trying to warn franchisees that the contract for the sale of the franchise is a premeditated TRAP made possible by the FTC Rule that doesn't require franchisors to be competent or to sell anything of value as long as there is a "reliance clause" in the contract for sale, the franchise agreement.

You, yourself, talked about the "reliance clause" that is generally always in franchise agreements, i.e., that states the buyer of the franchise is not relying on anything said or done outside of the written contract for sale, the franchise agreement.

I really don't know where you are coming from. How about some case law where franchisees have won and been made whole because they proved "fraudulent inducement to contract."

Corbin Williston's picture

An IFA shill or are you serious?

I begin to think that this is coming from an IFA shill.

But since some franchisees believe this stuff, let's parse this out.

This presale disclosure mandated by the FTC Rule enables a unilateral take-it-or-leave it contract of sale

The Rule simply says certain pre-sale disclosures must be made. It does not address whether the contract may or may not be negotiated.

the franchise agreement, that contains "non-negotiated" legal terms that rules the relationship of the franchisor-franchisee the entire term of the contract

Generally franchise agreements are contracts of adhesion. But so are your cell phone contract, your brokerage account agreement, your bank account agreement, your car financing contract, and everything you click-thru and accept on the internet.

And there is no reason why a franchise agreement can't be negotiated, other than most people will buy a franchise even if the franchisor gives them a "take it or leave it" contract, just as most people will sign the "take it or leave it" car financing contract.

Large mature systems will be difficult or outright refuse to negotiate any terms. But some systems will. And some key things such as purchasing cooperatives and control over the ad fund is something that must be done system-wide.

The franchisor is favored under the law of the unilateral commercial contract

Actually most contracts, including franchise agreements, are bilateral contracts. Just because a contract is adhesory does not make it a unilateral contract: adhesion relates to the strength of the parties, unilateral/bilateral relates to the obligations of the parties.

As with most adhesory contracts, the stronger party has the favorable terms.

It was the vision of the FTC Rule that there would be no private right of action for violation of the disclosure rule

Generally true. But there may be state law remedies, and common law remedies.

and that there would be no FRAUD unless there was a violation of the FTC Rule

Simply not true. Fraud is fact-specific, and requires reliance. It is on that last element that most claimants have a problem.

It is for this reason, in my opinion, that there has never been any successful legislation passed to protect franchisees after the relationship has commenced.

Legislation passes or fails based on whether it has the votes, and as Bismarck said: law is like sausage, if you love it then you should not watch it being made.

The Federal Law preempts State Law and franchisors don't want any changes in the FTC Rule that governs the sale of franchises to the public.

The FTC Franchise Rule is not a law, it is a regulation promulgated by an agency and as such entitled to Chevron deference, That is very different from a statute enacted by Congress.

It is a common misconception that Federal law preempts state law, and while entire books and many court cases have dealt with the issue of preemption, a quick rule of thumb is that courts will try not to find preemption.

Most of the proposed state franchise relationship legislation would not conflict with nor frustrate the purpose of any federal statute or regulation, and both the IFA and most of the legislators (who are often attorneys) are aware of this fact but it is a convenient (albeit erroneous) explanation for opposition to franchise relationship legislation.

 

 

Double-Speak

This presale disclosure mandated by the FTC Rule enables a unilateral take-it-or-leave it contract of sale, the franchise agreement, that contains "non-negotiated" legal terms that rules the relationship of the franchisor-franchisee the entire term of the contract, 10, 15, or even 20 years. The franchisor is favored under the law of the unilateral commercial contract.

It was the vision of the FTC Rule that there would be no private right of action for violation of the disclosure rule and that there would be no FRAUD unless there was a violation of the FTC Rule.

It is for this reason, in my opinion, that there has never been any successful legislation passed to protect franchisees after the relationship has commenced. The Federal Law preempts State Law and franchisors don't want any changes in the FTC Rule that governs the sale of franchises to the public.

Corbin Williston's picture

Improper conflation of disclosure & relationship

Visitor writes:

the FTC Franchise Rule that enables the Franchisors to take complete control of the relationship right after the sales-contract, the unilateral franchise agreement, has been signed by the good-faith franchisee.

No, no, no. This is the same illogical nonsense that the IFA says to state legislators.

The Franchise Rule governs the pre-sale process. It says that certain information must be provided in a certain format. No more, no less.

The "complete control" is exercised by means of the Franchise Agreement, particularly the clauses which grant nearly unfettered discretion to the franchisor. It has nothing to do with the Franchise Rule.

This is why many people think that a private right of action to enforce the Franchise Rule would not make much difference in franchising. There are some exceptions such as Michael Webster's view that supracompetitive mandatory raw material purchases constitute a disguised royalty, but for the most part there is a vast chasm between disclosure legislation versus relationship legislation.

There are some cases where the root of a zee/zor dispute arises in the disclosure document (such as with Coffee Beanery or some of the Don Bororian litigation). But most of the disputes arise out of the operational issues, and the franchisor's alleged overreaching.

 

FTC Franchise Rule Encourages Abusive Franchisors

7-Eleven has been able to treat their franchisees like employees because of the FTC Franchise Rule that enables the Franchisors to take complete control of the relationship right after the sales-contract, the unilateral franchise agreement, has been signed by the good-faith franchisee.

The legal terms of these unilateral contracts make it possible for the predatory franchisors to steal the businesses and equity of franchisees by using and misusing the contract terms. You can bet that 7-Eleven will claim that these franchisees were in breech of their contracts

Good franchisors who experience more success than failure still resort to "churning" founding franchisees, as necessary. That is, all franchisors sell new franchises out of the front door and cooperate in selling "used" and "failed" franchisee businesses out of the back door, whenever possible.

The most successful franchisors can indulge their predatory instincts at will with impunity under the contract terms.

Not what Kelly meant

Read it again. He is referring to the difficulty of running a brand while taking the interest of the franchisee-investors into account.

7-Eleven has long treated its supposed "franchisees" as employees or worse. Their degree of control over the "franchisees" is significant by comparison to other brands.

Sean Kelly says it is difficult to be as Franchisor!

Is it? The FTC Rule regarding presale disclosure demands very little from the franchisor.
The franchisor doesn't have to be competent and doesn't have to be selling anything of value as long as he doesn't make any statements of fact that are untrue in the franchise sales contracts.

FTC Rule Locks in Franchisor Power in Relationship

The FTC Rule that governs presale disclosure already leads to the franchise agreement, the sale contract, which gives the franchisor absolute power in the business relationship over the term of the contract.
This is why relationship legislation always fails; the franchisors would lose power that they already have under binding contracts upheld by the courts.

Sean Kelly's picture

Not a franchisor vs. franchisee thing

Actually, it IS difficult to be a franchisor ...at least a good one.

I think it's important to acknowledge that the vast majority of franchisors do not have the cold and predatory mentality described by Kurt McCord in his allegations.  I think it's fair to say the vast majority would be shocked and outraged by this kind of strategy.  At least I'd hope so.

Sean Kelly's picture

Kudos to Kurt McCord

You've got to hand it to Kurt McCord.  If his account is true (and I believe it is) he saw injustice and he spoke out, despite putting himself in the crosshairs of a company he knew to be both powerful and vindictive.  He spoke out against a superior (Mark Stinde) who was heralded as somewhat of a golden boy in his industry.  This guy's got conviction.

The bad news is the rest of the asset protection department seems to be fine showing up to work and following orders without questioning the ethics of what they're doing.

The good news is that it doesn't take that many Kurt McCords to blow the whistle on franchise companies alleged to have similar strategies. 
 

FTC Rule is for buyers, relationship legislation is for Zees

The FTC Rule handles pre-sales, not post franchise sales stuff. The FTC handles pre-sales DISCLOSURE, the stuff that happened to you before you signed on the dotted line.

Franchise relationship issues and the limits to what franchise contract traps can do are handled by franchise relationship laws. Only a minority of states have these. For existing franchisees, the FTC Franchise Rule isn't going to help much. You are beyond that and need something that regulates post-sales conduct.

This story should be picked up by the Business and Front

pages of our major newspapers as well as on major media but it will probably be buried just like the franchisees so often are buried in debt and despair. But, maybe Bob Baber's (Quiznos) death in a Quiznos bathroom in protest of injustice those many years ago was not in vain.

Sean Kelly demonstrates courage in getting this story out and documenting it with facts and letter testimony, etc... -----especially when he is already being sued by a franchisor because he gives "Unhappy Franchisees" a platform to tell their stories.

Mr. Blue Mau Mau deserves credit for allowing everybody's truth to be aired in the "Comment" column. What we need is a REALITY TV show to get the attention of the public and expose this BEAST of a Business Model that looks so much like organized crime and that is protected by the law of the FTC Rule.

Minor setback

The CEO will go back on Undercover Boss.

The GC will go to an IFA symposium and learn how to screw the franchisees without becoming the lead story on bluemaumau.

The franchise salesforce will find new sheep to fleece.

Who wants to bet that this revelation will not affect franchise sales for 2014?

Franchisees don't understand

Sean Kelly is a liar.

Just a few months ago the IFA was all over the statehouse in Augusta saying these things don't happen anymore.

Franchisees don't need relationship legislation because franchising only works when everyone benefits.

These 7-11 franchisees now have the opportunity for lots of leisure time. And now they are eligible for FREE soup at the local soup kitchen.

Michael Seid calls this a "win-win" outcome but really it is not because the kind franchisor now has a huge capital gains tax to pay on the resale of the seized stores.

Sean Kelly has no idea how difficult it is to be a franchisor.